President Franklin Roosevelt, who picked up the tradition of an oral State of the Union in 1934, addresses Congress on Jan. 7, 1943. / AP

by Bob Beckel and Cal Thomas, USA TODAY

by Bob Beckel and Cal Thomas, USA TODAY

Cal Thomas is a conservative columnist. Bob Beckel is a liberal Democratic strategist. But as longtime friends, they can often find common ground on issues that lawmakers in Washington cannot.

CAL: The State of the Union Address as we know it was revived by Franklin Roosevelt in 1934 after a long dormant period. Many presidents simply "mailed it in" when they bothered at all. In the television age, these speeches are more political posturing than an honest assessment of the country' condition. I expect President Obama will follow in that modern "tradition" next week.

BOB: President Ford said in his 1975 State of the Union, "The state of the union is not good." That was not "mailing it in." I give Ford credit for his candor. That said, I agree that Obama will stick to the format of his last three State of the Union speeches and present an upbeat assessment of the country's well-being.

CAL: Thomas Jefferson, whom your party likes to claim as the first Democrat, discontinued the practice of delivering the speech in person. He thought it smacked of monarchy, and he was right. Look at the way the president is introduced and the posturing to shake his hand and get TV face time as he walks down the center aisle of the House. And then there's the phony applause, including by the opposition when they latch onto a word they think supports their position. News people actually count the number of times the president is "interrupted." There was the equally phony seating arrangement that mixed members of both parties to show "togetherness" and the popping up and down, which resembles the Whac-A-Mole game.

BOB: You are so cynical.

CAL: No, I'm just expressing what I think a lot of readers think. Members of both parties are too full of themselves and more intent in saving their careers than in promoting the general welfare. Proof of that is in the poll testing that takes place before these speeches. You were involved in that.

BOB: Often, lines from a State of the Union Address are tested with "focus groups," as pollsters call them, to see how the line or message will be received. I have no problem with that as long as the message is fair and accurate. For instance, Obama would be right in stating the economy is on the mend, but he also needs to be honest in recognizing that millions are still suffering and that we have a ways to go yet to regain economic prosperity.

CAL:I expect the president will restate many of his themes from the inaugural address. He'll claim the economy is rebounding and repeat his familiar themes of green jobs, gun control, same-sex marriage and "comprehensive" immigration reform. Did I leave anything out?

BOB: As I said, he has every reason to say the economy is "rebounding" from the mess he inherited. Millions of jobs have been created in the past three years, manufacturing is coming back, housing sales are up and fewer people are in foreclosure. On the other issues, progressives and conservatives have profoundly different beliefs. We believe in green jobs, controlling guns, the wealthy paying their fair share in taxes and finally resolving immigration reform. Conservative do not.

CAL: With good reason. By any objective standard, it is difficult to conclude the state of the union is good when record numbers of Americans are on food stamps and unemployment has increased to 7.9% with a net loss in jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports 8.5 million people left the labor force during the president's first term. GDP shrank in December.

BOB: I hope in his speech Obama underscores that the active U.S. military presence in Afghanistan will end next year to make an important point. He should say the U.S. is not the world's policeman and, unless our national security is directly affected, we can no longer carry the burden in blood and treasure, unless those burdens are shared by other countries and a convincing case is made about how any such conflict adversely affects America. I think you agree on that, Cal.

CAL: I certainly do, Bob. But one side can't "end" a war unless it surrenders. As we've seen in Libya, Mali and throughout the Middle East, terrorists are not declaring an end to their war against us.

BOB: There have been signs of bipartisanship on domestic issues in Congress, especially in the Senate on immigration reform. The major roadblock to such agreements are the ultraright Tea Party members of the House, who can still block reforms even if their leadership finds common ground. I have no doubt Speaker John Boehner would support the Senate principles on immigration reform, but he can't get the "wingers" in his caucus to go along.

CAL: I would, too, if the border is made truly secure this time and the legalized immigrants are not allowed to vote for 20 years. That would expose the real game, which is votes.

BOB: Obama should lay out clearly in the State of the Union his goals for a second term. My suggestions are bringing the U.S. military home from foreign entanglements, meaningful immigration reform that recognizes we must find a fair policy to put the 11 million plus undocumented workers on the road to citizenship, and finally dealing with the nation's debt. On the first two, Obama has made great progress, on the debt he has not. What say you?

CAL: I say he has used the debt to raise more taxes, but, as an honest man, you know spending is the problem, and that means attacking the twin monsters of debt: Medicare and Social Security. As for the rest, we agree America's role in the world must be discussed, including how to fight the war against terrorists. I hope the president will mention those vital subjects in his address.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors.